It is a well-known fact in Malaysia that the governing law of legal profession for Peninsular and East Malaysia differ from one another. Should one wish to commence a court action in the East Malaysia, an advocate qualified under the Sabah or Sarawak Advocates Ordinance would have to be appointed. However, what about adjudication proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) which allows parties to “be represented by any representative appointed by the party”. The High Court case of Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd v Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd had recently shed light on this matter.
“The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) has been legislated to facilitate cash flow in the construction industry.” – a sentiment readily resonated nationally amongst judges and legal practitioners in the construction industry alike, amongst others.
In Sunrise Megaway Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Kathryn Ma Wai Fong, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a liquidator’s decision to admit a proof of debt (POD) could be challenged.
It is a standard practice in the hotel industry to collect a 10% service charge from the customers in place of a tipping system, which will in turn be distributed to the eligible employees. This seemingly explains why the hotel industry employees were paid low basic salary, because they would be compensated with the income earned from service charge.
Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 has been set in motion today by seeing the first charge made against an offshore vessel company, since the provision came into force on 1 June 2020.